Chicago White Sox Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 7:39 AM, tray said: OK Ishbia is a ticket to the promised land. But, from a larger perspective, for those willing to take that, I wonder how long the money game can last. Right now it sure looks good though with the Sox at the bottom of the heap. Then there is this. Consider that we (the ISFA/taxpayers ) own the current stadium, acres of parking, and a lease with the White Sox franchise for 5 more seasons. That seems like a predicate for at least exploring the possibility of making the WSox a publicly held team, or a hybrid like the Packers. Probably unrealistic , and I understand that, but I am just not fully on board with private ownership of sports teams by Billionaires. But winning is everything I guess. Expand What in the world are you guys talking about? Public ownership isn’t happening and it’s not worth wasting a billionth of a second talking out. It’s absolutely wild to me that there are actually posters trying to paint going from Jerry to Ishbia as anything but a positive. 4 3 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 12:27 PM, Chicago White Sox said: What in the world are you guys talking about? Public ownership isn’t happening and it’s not worth wasting a billionth of a second talking out. It’s absolutely wild to me that there are actually posters trying to paint going from Jerry to Ishbia as anything but a positive. Expand Well, you see, JR likes parking lots. That's a huge plus. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 12:27 PM, Chicago White Sox said: What in the world are you guys talking about? Public ownership isn’t happening and it’s not worth wasting a billionth of a second talking out. It’s absolutely wild to me that there are actually posters trying to paint going from Jerry to Ishbia as anything but a positive. Expand Because, [redacted] sees the plan that we all see, which ends up in a new building somewhere not where [redacted] wants it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 (edited) On 2/26/2025 at 12:27 PM, Chicago White Sox said: What in the world are you guys talking about? Public ownership isn’t happening and it’s not worth wasting a billionth of a second talking out. It’s absolutely wild to me that there are actually posters trying to paint going from Jerry to Ishbia as anything but a positive. Expand If there's even a thought that Tray might have to take a train then Ishbia can kick rocks. Edited February 26 by Rowand44 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Ishiba’s first order of business will be firing anyone with University of Michigan ties. 4 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/25/2025 at 7:32 PM, nrockway said: “This guy is so rich, he’s gonna spend so much money on great players” no he won’t Expand It certainly isn't guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 1:38 PM, fathom said: Ishiba’s first order of business will be firing anyone with University of Michigan ties. Expand I'm sorry, you don't think (likely) having back-to-back 110+ loss seasons is a stellar resume? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 7:39 AM, tray said: OK Ishbia is a ticket to the promised land. But, from a larger perspective, for those willing to take that, I wonder how long the money game can last. Right now it sure looks good though with the Sox at the bottom of the heap. Then there is this. Consider that we (the ISFA/taxpayers ) own the current stadium, acres of parking, and a lease with the White Sox franchise for 5 more seasons. That seems like a predicate for at least exploring the possibility of making the WSox a publicly held team, or a hybrid like the Packers. Probably unrealistic , and I understand that, but I am just not fully on board with private ownership of sports teams by Billionaires. But winning is everything I guess. Expand As the sell price of these teams increases to the ten billion dollar plus range it will make sense at some point to take them public. What we are nearing the end of, if we haven't already, are the civic minded hobbiest owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 2:07 PM, Texsox said: It certainly isn't guaranteed. Expand What other solution is there? Waiting on uncertain minor league prospects is far from guaranteed. It worked for KC Houston Cubs in the previous generation of rebuilding teams...but look at where the Sox Padres and Blue Jays are right now. Sox have hopefully bottomed out, but the other two are in pretty precarious positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 2:35 PM, caulfield12 said: What other solution is there? Waiting on uncertain minor league prospects is far from guaranteed. It worked for KC Houston Cubs in the previous generation of rebuilding teams...but look at where the Sox Padres and Blue Jays are right now. Sox have hopefully bottomed out, but the other two are in pretty precarious positions. Expand It certainly is the fastest route to winning. After buying the team is there still money in the budget for a half a billion dollar payroll? I don't know. So I don't believe it's a guarantee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 (edited) On 2/26/2025 at 2:56 PM, Texsox said: It certainly is the fastest route to winning. After buying the team is there still money in the budget for a half a billion dollar payroll? I don't know. So I don't believe it's a guarantee. Expand They will need to come up with $500 million to $1 billion for a new stadium as well...at least 50% or more of the costs. If they ever want to build back the value of their media rights they can't run a team out there without a single star player. Baseball...after all, is an entertainment-based endeavor. Edited February 26 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 2:07 PM, Texsox said: It certainly isn't guaranteed. Expand I'll take my chances over the current owner who already doesn't "spend so much money on great players." 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 3:41 PM, Bob Sacamano said: I'll take my chances over the current owner who already doesn't "spend so much money on great players." Expand And famously expressed zero interest in Ohtani and basically tepid interest in Bryce Harper based upon those abbreviated negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 1:38 PM, fathom said: Ishiba’s first order of business will be firing anyone with University of Michigan ties. Expand Poor Merk 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 As I understand it, JR will still have complete control even with Ishbia buying up more shares. If I were looking to buy this franchise, I wouldn't want JR calling the shots for an indefinite period. Regardless Ishbia will have to spend. Fans are not in the mood for another owner who is not serious about winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 1:10 PM, Kyyle23 said: Because, [redacted] sees the plan that we all see, which ends up in a new building somewhere not where [redacted] wants it. Expand The only other plan that has been floated is the one by Related development so I assume that is the plan you see. I never said that any new stadium anywhere else would not make sense, just that 78 plan was a folly. I posted specific facts about that site concerning its history (as a former river bed and land fill) and the ingress/egress issues. You never responded to any of that, but instead continue to troll me with your nonsense. To refresh your recollection: ---------------------- I saw one rendering of that site with the Sox stadium and another with the UIC building, then prior to the Stadium concept, others made for potential investors that had office buildings with a crescent shaped park where the original river was. The design of the stadium is subjective, so you might like that and you might also like what was done with the last remodel of Soldier Field. I don't. Some prefer certain kinds of stadium architecture from the ultra modern like SoFi stadium to some of the retro parks. I thought the rendering was not taken too seriously which might explain the architecture and failure to take historical Comiskey architectural as a predicate ( I don't count the whirly birds in CF as anything but a feeble and trite nod to old Comiskey). The lighted 50 foot (or so) "Sox " logo is a cringe-worthy joke, one that would make the architects who cherished and refurbished the classic sign over the front entrance of Wrigley laugh. I personally don't see the draw of a glass box stadium with a giant lighted Sox logo on it. Fans in Boston, Baltimore, SF Pittsburgh etc would laugh at this thing. Those that have been to those places know what I mean. They are special, this thing isn't. I am not an architect but you asked why I think it was ridiculous, and so I try to explain why. No reason to rush into a new stadium without getting a lot of fan input. That was a mistake made the last time. They didn't ask us. Respect the original architecture from the same architect who designed Wrigley. Incorporate a lot of brick like the old park and Wrigley. Chicagoans love brick, not glass, metal and stucco (like the Rate). And then there is the 78 site which has all kinds of development issues including ingress/egress/parking. I would encourage fans who have not stepped foot down there to do that. If you can't, perhaps try a virtual trip via Google maps. As you will see, to the North, Roosevelt Rd., elevated over the site because of the bridge going over the river. To the East Clark street which has a tunnel down to grade and up to the intersection with Roosevelt Rd (and train tracks just west of that). To the South, Ping Tom park which apparently was not designed to take ingress / egress to the subject land under consideration. And of course, to the West, a murky river, Lumber street, and a RR bone yard. It is what it is. https://maps.app.goo.gl/kJ4rLnVM5coXcWTm7 Ask yourself, why hasn't that site been developed for 100 years? Why did U of I buck out after all that money was invested into it? If I was the WSox ownership, I would not want that parcel for free, even if real estate taxes were paid and Related actually had the Deed to the UIC parcel.------- The taxpayers own the current site and the stadium under authority vested in the ISFA. That, and the fact that the WSox have been there almost since the founding of the team make the notion of abandoning that site to move 16 blocks away to a compromised site, require a bit more justification. As far as I see it right now, moving the Sox elsewhere, including outside Chicago, is forseeable, but not on the 78. That thing is dead in the water. Ask UIC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 I’m not asking myself anything, Tray. Nobody is more emotionally involved with being against this than you are. I don’t care, I want this organization to be better in every aspect, I’m not holding on to my own opinion of the Sox and trying to make everyone agree with me. If they move to the 78 and build a badass site, great. If they move to Arlington Heights and become part of the bears lot, also great. If they stay in their current location and the building starts falling apart around our heads, not so great. i have zero sway on this stadium move/non move. If/when this team finds itself back to mediocrity(not even respectability) then I will start giving them my money again. I’m certainly not going to tell anyone else they are wrong for wanting new stadium 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 "If they stay in their current location and the building starts falling apart around our heads, not so great. " Comiskey arguably needed to be replaced. The current park probably doesn't, at least for a few decades. You perceive that I am emotional about having a stadium concept rammed down our throats. Reason for that is that it happened to Sox fans before. We wanted to be part of the process back when the idea of replacing Comiskey was being considered. As an example, an architect designed "Armor Park" as an alternative but his plan was cast aside as were other ideas from fans. This time I would like to see a more deliberate process where alternative plans and fans' opinions are considered rather than ridiculed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 3:58 PM, tray said: Some prefer certain kinds of stadium architecture from the ultra modern like SoFi stadium to some of the retro parks. I thought the rendering was not taken too seriously which might explain the architecture and failure to take historical Comiskey architectural as a predicate ( I don't count the whirly birds in CF as anything but a feeble and trite nod to old Comiskey). The lighted 50 foot (or so) "Sox " logo is a cringe-worthy joke, one that would make the architects who cherished and refurbished the classic sign over the front entrance of Wrigley laugh. I personally don't see the draw of a glass box stadium with a giant lighted Sox logo on it. Fans in Boston, Baltimore, SF Pittsburgh etc would laugh at this thing. Those that have been to those places know what I mean. They are special, this thing isn't. I am not an architect but you asked why I think it was ridiculous, and so I try to explain why. No reason to rush into a new stadium without getting a lot of fan input. That was a mistake made the last time. They didn't ask us. Respect the original architecture from the same architect who designed Wrigley. Incorporate a lot of brick like the old park and Wrigley. Chicagoans love brick, not glass, metal and stucco (like the Rate). Expand Old Comiskey will have been gone for like 40 years by the time they move to a new ballpark. No offense, but I don't think their main goal is going to be to recreate a ballpark to appeal to guys in their 60s-70s. Besides, the retro trend for ballparks began in 1992 and ended about a decade ago. I'm not saying that I don't think a lot of those parks that were built during that time period were cool, but there are a lot of design styles other than "Retro" or "Not Retro." Finally... I wouldn't put too much stock in what signage looks like on the initial renderings for a park that is years away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 5:58 PM, tray said: "If they stay in their current location and the building starts falling apart around our heads, not so great. " Comiskey arguably needed to be replaced. The current park probably doesn't, at least for a few decades. You perceive that I am emotional about having a stadium concept rammed down our throats. Reason for that is that it happened to Sox fans before. We wanted to be part of the process back when the idea of replacing Comiskey was being considered. As an example, an architect designed "Armor Park" as an alternative but his plan was cast aside as were other ideas from fans. This time I would like to see a more deliberate process where alternative plans and fans' opinions are considered rather than ridiculed. Expand Fans don’t get a say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nothing has been rammed down anyone’s throat here, Tray. Nothing. The state said NO. Jerry doesn’t want to foot the bill. Fans won’t move the needle here, and if/when the decision is made to break ground, the fans won’t have anything to do with where that dirt comes up. Is what it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/26/2025 at 3:58 PM, tray said: The only other plan that has been floated is the one by Related development so I assume that is the plan you see. I never said that any new stadium anywhere else would not make sense, just that 78 plan was a folly. I posted specific facts about that site concerning its history (as a former river bed and land fill) and the ingress/egress issues. You never responded to any of that, but instead continue to troll me with your nonsense. To refresh your recollection: ---------------------- I saw one rendering of that site with the Sox stadium and another with the UIC building, then prior to the Stadium concept, others made for potential investors that had office buildings with a crescent shaped park where the original river was. The design of the stadium is subjective, so you might like that and you might also like what was done with the last remodel of Soldier Field. I don't. Some prefer certain kinds of stadium architecture from the ultra modern like SoFi stadium to some of the retro parks. I thought the rendering was not taken too seriously which might explain the architecture and failure to take historical Comiskey architectural as a predicate ( I don't count the whirly birds in CF as anything but a feeble and trite nod to old Comiskey). The lighted 50 foot (or so) "Sox " logo is a cringe-worthy joke, one that would make the architects who cherished and refurbished the classic sign over the front entrance of Wrigley laugh. I personally don't see the draw of a glass box stadium with a giant lighted Sox logo on it. Fans in Boston, Baltimore, SF Pittsburgh etc would laugh at this thing. Those that have been to those places know what I mean. They are special, this thing isn't. I am not an architect but you asked why I think it was ridiculous, and so I try to explain why. No reason to rush into a new stadium without getting a lot of fan input. That was a mistake made the last time. They didn't ask us. Respect the original architecture from the same architect who designed Wrigley. Incorporate a lot of brick like the old park and Wrigley. Chicagoans love brick, not glass, metal and stucco (like the Rate). And then there is the 78 site which has all kinds of development issues including ingress/egress/parking. I would encourage fans who have not stepped foot down there to do that. If you can't, perhaps try a virtual trip via Google maps. As you will see, to the North, Roosevelt Rd., elevated over the site because of the bridge going over the river. To the East Clark street which has a tunnel down to grade and up to the intersection with Roosevelt Rd (and train tracks just west of that). To the South, Ping Tom park which apparently was not designed to take ingress / egress to the subject land under consideration. And of course, to the West, a murky river, Lumber street, and a RR bone yard. It is what it is. https://maps.app.goo.gl/kJ4rLnVM5coXcWTm7 Ask yourself, why hasn't that site been developed for 100 years? Why did U of I buck out after all that money was invested into it? If I was the WSox ownership, I would not want that parcel for free, even if real estate taxes were paid and Related actually had the Deed to the UIC parcel.------- The taxpayers own the current site and the stadium under authority vested in the ISFA. That, and the fact that the WSox have been there almost since the founding of the team make the notion of abandoning that site to move 16 blocks away to a compromised site, require a bit more justification. As far as I see it right now, moving the Sox elsewhere, including outside Chicago, is forseeable, but not on the 78. That thing is dead in the water. Ask UIC. Expand It was like a week ago I gave you multiple examples of all of your non-sequiturs which have happened all over Chicago in the past few decades. Failure to launch of huge projects isn't some vast conspiracy, it's fairly normal because getting something of that size and scope off of the ground is difficult. Hell the White Sox themselves have been bound for like half a dozen different places and projects since the 1960s including Milwaukee, Seattle, Addison, Tampa, and others. WHY DOESN'T ANYONE WANT THE SOX, WHAT DO THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 (edited) On 2/26/2025 at 5:58 PM, tray said: "If they stay in their current location and the building starts falling apart around our heads, not so great. " Comiskey arguably needed to be replaced. The current park probably doesn't, at least for a few decades. You perceive that I am emotional about having a stadium concept rammed down our throats. Reason for that is that it happened to Sox fans before. We wanted to be part of the process back when the idea of replacing Comiskey was being considered. As an example, an architect designed "Armor Park" as an alternative but his plan was cast aside as were other ideas from fans. This time I would like to see a more deliberate process where alternative plans and fans' opinions are considered rather than ridiculed. Expand Armour Park But what law exists that ownership has to follow the fan interests? Sure it would be nice if we ended up closer to Camden Yards than Kauffman minus the fountains. Ofc if the fans don't like the outcome...they can vote with their feet. Which is largely what has happened when the Sox haven't put winning teams on the field the last 35 years. Edited February 26 by caulfield12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 On 2/26/2025 at 12:46 AM, caulfield12 said: He didn't buy the Twins partially because he much prefers staying in Chicago.... Do it right and you have a gold mine with a split of the third largest media market. New stadium possibly. Downtown adjacent. Cubs are going to be making a mistake if they don't make the playoffs this year and advance with Tucker...seems so unlikely he signs long-term. Ricketts clearly following the JR and KW "finishing 2nd-4th place is still a successful revenue producing season" philosophy from 2000-2012. Expand More than enough owners do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 On 2/26/2025 at 7:07 PM, Nardiwashere said: Old Comiskey will have been gone for like 40 years by the time they move to a new ballpark. No offense, but I don't think their main goal is going to be to recreate a ballpark to appeal to guys in their 60s-70s. Besides, the retro trend for ballparks began in 1992 and ended about a decade ago. I'm not saying that I don't think a lot of those parks that were built during that time period were cool, but there are a lot of design styles other than "Retro" or "Not Retro." Finally... I wouldn't put too much stock in what signage looks like on the initial renderings for a park that is years away. Expand The 78 was a con job finally realized by several prospective tenants who lost a lot of money investing in it. Happily it is now dead in the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 On 2/27/2025 at 1:40 AM, tray said: The 78 was a con job finally realized by several prospective tenants who lost a lot of money investing in it. Happily it is now dead in the water. Expand Lol we will see. If they move the 78 site, you gonna stop going to games? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.